NACIREMA DEMOLITION AND RECYCLING, INC. et al v. NEW JERSEY BUILDING LABORERS STATEWIDE BENEFIT FUNDS
Filing
37
LETTER OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 09/05/2018. (sms)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF
MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-645-5903
SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
September 5, 2018
Anthony M. Rainone, Esq.
Eric Magnelli, Esq.
Brach Eichler L.L.C.
101 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068-1067
Counsel for Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendant
Bradley Mark Parsons, Esq.
Jennifer Chang, Esq.
Kroll Heineman Carton, LLC
99 Wood Avenue South, Suite 307
Iselin, NJ 08830
Counsel for Defendant
LETTER ORDER FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Re:
Nacirema Demolition & Recyling Inc. v. N.J. Building Laborers Statewide
Benefit Funds
Civil Action No. 18-2692 (SDW) (LDW)
Counsel:
Before this Court is Third-Party Defendant CLNV, LLC’s (“CLNV”) Motion to Dismiss
Defendant New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds’ (the “Funds”) Third-Party
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This Court having considered the parties’ submissions, having reached
its decision without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, and for the
reasons discussed below, denies CLNV’s motion.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
An adequate complaint must be “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). This Rule “requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted); see also Phillips v.
County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (stating that Rule 8 “requires a ‘showing,’
rather than a blanket assertion, of an entitlement to relief”).
In considering a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must “accept all factual
allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine
whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.”
Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231 (external citation omitted). However, “the tenet that a court must accept
as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.
Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
B. The Third-Party Complaint Sufficiently States a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be
Granted
The instant matter revolves around monies allegedly owed by Nacirema Environmental
Services, Inc. (“NES”) to the Funds pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”)
between NES and the New Jersey Building Construction Laborers’ District Council (the
“Union”). Plaintiffs Nacirema Demolition and Recycling, Inc. (“NDR”), John Cherchio
(“Cherchio”), and Andrew Romanello (“Romanello”) brought suit in February 2018 for
declaratory judgment that they had no legal relationship to NES that would obligate them under
the CBA. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Funds subsequently filed a third-party complaint against CLNV
seeking a declaratory judgment that CLNV acted as an alter ego and/or single integrated
enterprise with NDR, Cherchio and Romanello and could be bound by the arbitration provisions
in the CBA. (Dkt. No. 21.)
CLNV moved to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint on July 12, 2018, alleging that it
failed to sufficiently allege the alter ego or integrated enterprise/single employer theories of
liability. (Dkt. No. 28-1.) The facts alleged in the third-party complaint, however, are adequate
to sustain the Funds’ claims at this stage of the proceedings. The Third-Party Complaint alleges
generally that CLNV shared “substantially identical business purposes, operations, management
and supervision” with NDR, and by extension, NES, and further details the nature of those ties,
including the services offered, shared principals and managers, and property used by all entities.
(Dkt. No. 21 ¶¶ 23-27.) This is sufficient to survive CLNV’s motion to dismiss.
CONCLUSION
Third-Party Defendant CLNV’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. An appropriate order
follows.
___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
Orig: Clerk
cc:
Parties
Leda D. Wettre, U.S.M.J.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?